Welcome to Perth

Darjeeling unrest: Gorkhaland movement is a question of identity, not development

Darjeeling unrest: Gorkhaland movement is a question of identity, not development

Being in Darjeeling for the creation of a separate state called Gorkhaland agitation and, most importantly, its open support by Chief Minister Pawan Kumar Chamling of the neighboring Sikkim state has to be seen in a different perspective from that associated with similar requirements, As in the past than in the past, to the state in other parts of the country.

In Darjeeling Hills, the fundamental question of the request to separate from West Bengal is identity, not development.

Of course, most of the new states that were cut off from the big states in recent years have not definitely settled the debate over what is the ideal criterion based on which a state should be formed.

Currently India has 29 states and seven union territories. Independent of India in 1947 were 16 states and some 10 union territories. The number of states has increased over time due to the division of some large states and the conversion of some states into the territories of the union.

The last time cartographers were sent by train to describe the borders of India was in 2014, when Telengana was formed from Andhra Pradesh.

It may be noted that conditions such as Andhra Pradesh part undivided from the original Madras state; Haryana, part of the initial state of Punjab; And Maharashtra and Gujarat, the source of the undivided province of Bombay, were the creations of demonstrations and hunger strikes carried out by leading national leaders.

However, many of the new states were formed on the basis of Commission recommendations for the reorganization of states created in 1955.

Formed as a result of the agitation in favor of the creation of a language of Andhra Pradesh speaking Telugu dividing the province of Madras – Tamil where was the other important language – the committee in 1956 designed the highly questionable criterion of the language community as the basis For new states.

Representative image. ReutersRepresentation image. Reuters
It can be mentioned here that the prime minister of the time, Jawaharlal Nehru, was not very satisfied with the recommendations of the Commission, which essentially favored the creation of new states based on the language spoken by the people. Importantly, BR Ambedkar, who played a key role in drafting the Indian Constitution, was not consistent with the Commission’s recommendations.

Ambedkar said: “Obviously, the Commission believes that the size of a state is not a consequence and that equality in the size of the state to constitute a federation is not a time. This is the first and more. If it is not corrected in time, it will really be a good deal. ”

Ambedkar realized that the disparity in population size resulted was a “fantastic” one, which was creating huge costs for the nation. Their opposition to the Commission’s recommendations stems from the imbalance of political power in the country – the great northern and southern states of Balkanization force the two sides of the country against each other.

The solution proposing to use the size of state and administrative efficiency of the smaller states in the north: divide the three large states – Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh and use the rule that “a population of about Two million rupees, which should be regarded as the standard size of the population of a state to manage effectively. “